It'd be too snarky if I suggest using a d2 for other classes, wouldn't it?

I do remember a DM (back in 2nd Edition days) requiring a natural 20 for success in doing such things as shooting and severing the rope the enemy is climbing down. Maybe something simple along those lines??? But it'd also have to apply to the Warrior, regardless of his MDoA die result, I'd think.

This has always been an issue with the MDoA rules. It excludes all other classes from doing anything mundanely cool in combat. Other games would solve this by having drama dice or something similar. The "standard" d20 rules for such things allow you to spend a die to gain a feat for one round. A similar system to allow a one-shot MDoA seems appropriate.

My suggestion would be to resolve these kinds of attacks for non-warriors in the same ways they would have been resolved in older editions of AD&D: e.g. called shots can be attempted with a very high to-hit penalty; things like disarms or blinding attacks can be determined by a called shot that does sufficient damage; etc. They'd be very difficult to pull off but not impossible, and the difficulty would likely force non-warriors to burn Luck to succeed at them.

So warriors would continue to be much better at performing such tasks (and get the benefits of being able to successfully attack a foe even when the Deed fails, and of improving their chances of performing Deeds as they level up), while non-warriors could attempt similar moves at a high risk of failure (and with the built-in penalty that failing the "deed" means failing the attack).

Deeds like defensive and rallying manuevers would still be reserved for warriors only. There's no reason a cleric or wizard should be able to do such things any more than a warrior should be able to turn undead or invoke a patron.

For the latter, maybe the penalty is double the number the Warrior would need on his bonus die? That is, if a Warrior needs a 4 on his bonus die to pull off a stunt, then anyone else takes a penalty of -8 to do the same thing. Or maybe 1.5x (i.e. -6).

My suggestion would be to resolve these kinds of attacks for non-warriors in the same ways they would have been resolved in older editions of AD&D: e.g. called shots can be attempted with a very high to-hit penalty; things like disarms or blinding attacks can be determined by a called shot that does sufficient damage; etc. They'd be very difficult to pull off but not impossible, and the difficulty would likely force non-warriors to burn Luck to succeed at them.

So warriors would continue to be much better at performing such tasks (and get the benefits of being able to successfully attack a foe even when the Deed fails, and of improving their chances of performing Deeds as they level up), while non-warriors could attempt similar moves at a high risk of failure (and with the built-in penalty that failing the "deed" means failing the attack).

Deeds like defensive and rallying manuevers would still be reserved for warriors only. There's no reason a cleric or wizard should be able to do such things any more than a warrior should be able to turn undead or invoke a patron.

As much as I'd like a simpler system this is probably the best way to handle this so that warriors still retain their flavour. Give other classes a -8 penalty (or higher) and let them try.

Remember that their is a Lucky system already in place here, so we don't really need an extra mechanic ie. spend 4 luck for a 1d4, roll over 2, chance --- though that is IS interesting. The character can simply boost their chances by spending luck anyway. Halflings of course would get twice the benefit and Rogues, the one class I would be most comfortable pulling off these deeds of daring-do, would be able to do so fairly easily by spending only a point or two.

This would put Thieves and Halflings at an advantage in straight combat to other non-warriors - but let's be honest, the Elf/Wizard is too busy Sleeping the opposition and slitting throats to care.

I vote for this. It is both simple and consistent with the rules. (I take it that of course you don't add the luck burn to damage like you would with MDoAs!)And it makes sense to give Thieves and Halflings this little advantage:

Thieves are good at fighting dirty and they are tricky "sons-of-a-lich", anyway

Halfling are resourceful people, struggling against odds and they should accomplish things through craftiness rather than strength, taking side-ways when others would take the straight way.

I vote for this. It is both simple and consistent with the rules. (I take it that of course you don't add the luck burn to damage like you would with MDoAs!)And it makes sense to give Thieves and Halflings this little advantage:

Unless I misunderstood what you wrote here....

You cannot 'burn' luck on a MDoA die roll. Only the d20 combat roll. So you CANNOT boost the MDoA die for MDoA effects or damage.

I vote for this. It is both simple and consistent with the rules. (I take it that of course you don't add the luck burn to damage like you would with MDoAs!)And it makes sense to give Thieves and Halflings this little advantage:

Unless I misunderstood what you wrote here....

You cannot 'burn' luck on a MDoA die roll. Only the d20 combat roll. So you CANNOT boost the MDoA die for MDoA effects or damage.

You totally misunderstand. He means the THIEF or CLERIC or ELF burns luck to pull of a one-time MDoA. It solves the perceived issue of "only a warrior or dwarf can attempt to push the orc off the bridge."

I have not seen a better suggestion beyond "They just can't combine it with an attack." To which the response is, "They how do they do it?"

I vote for this. It is both simple and consistent with the rules. (I take it that of course you don't add the luck burn to damage like you would with MDoAs!)And it makes sense to give Thieves and Halflings this little advantage:

Unless I misunderstood what you wrote here....

You cannot 'burn' luck on a MDoA die roll. Only the d20 combat roll. So you CANNOT boost the MDoA die for MDoA effects or damage.

You totally misunderstand. He means the THIEF or CLERIC or ELF burns luck to pull of a one-time MDoA. It solves the perceived issue of "only a warrior or dwarf can attempt to push the orc off the bridge."

I have not seen a better suggestion beyond "They just can't combine it with an attack." To which the response is, "They how do they do it?"

Exactly. Probably my bad Hamakto for not being clear!The way I understood the original suggestion was...

"an Orc chief is roteating a terrible flail crackling with magical energy. The warrior tries to cut the chain, disarming the Orc, but he fails. The orc hits the warrior who is slain on the spot. The Cleric rushes to stop the warrior's bleeding, while the thief tries to do via luck/willpower/courage what the warrior couldn't via technique and brawns. The thief burns 5 points of luck, performing an MDoA with a result of 5 to disarm the enemy."

Exactly. Probably my bad Hamakto for not being clear!The way I understood the original suggestion was...

"an Orc chief is roteating a terrible flail crackling with magical energy. The warrior tries to cut the chain, disarming the Orc, but he fails. The orc hits the warrior who is slain on the spot. The Cleric rushes to stop the warrior's bleeding, while the thief tries to do via luck/willpower/courage what the warrior couldn't via technique and brawns. The thief burns 5 points of luck, performing an MDoA with a result of 5 to disarm the enemy."

This looks elegant and appealing to my eyes

I like this, the problem is it still hasn't solved what happens when the wizard wants to trip the orc off the bridge later... Or the thief needs to do it again but is out of luck.

I like this, the problem is it still hasn't solved what happens when the wizard wants to trip the orc off the bridge later... Or the thief needs to do it again but is out of luck.

Telling them they simply "can't" seems silly.

My suggestion would be that you are back to a 3e type situation for the attack. The ATTACK roll for the Elf/Cleric/Wizard would be to trip or push someone. The result would be applied (quite possibly without damage) based on the combat roll. Since they are not 'trained' in those maneuvers, the opponent would get a 'free whack' at them for trying something that sneaky. If they successfully 'whack' you first, the maneuver will fail.

Yes you can do it. You might get whacked.

Example: A wizard wants to use his staff to push someone off the bridge. He takes the staff and tries to push someone with the end of the staff. If the opponent misses the wizard AND the wizard hits the opponent, then they would be shoved back X distance. Note not damage would occur from the push as they cannot manage to do an damage and effect (MDoA) at the same time.

Exactly. Probably my bad Hamakto for not being clear!The way I understood the original suggestion was...

"an Orc chief is roteating a terrible flail crackling with magical energy. The warrior tries to cut the chain, disarming the Orc, but he fails. The orc hits the warrior who is slain on the spot. The Cleric rushes to stop the warrior's bleeding, while the thief tries to do via luck/willpower/courage what the warrior couldn't via technique and brawns. The thief burns 5 points of luck, performing an MDoA with a result of 5 to disarm the enemy."

This looks elegant and appealing to my eyes

I like this, the problem is it still hasn't solved what happens when the wizard wants to trip the orc off the bridge later... Or the thief needs to do it again but is out of luck.

Telling them they simply "can't" seems silly.

What about a simple "only on a natural 20" if you don't want to burn luck? Technically they can try... if they survive long enough they should pull it. The Luck "shortcut" is well, lucky. You pretend to be lucky enough to have rolled a 20!

My suggestion would be that you are back to a 3e type situation for the attack.

And most of us would prefer that there is some rule actually in DCCRPG that says what to do and thus we are not reduced to consulting other gaming books for an answer. "How do I trip an opponent" is not so esoteric an action that it would not make sense to have a suggestion for how to resolve it. There are rules for this in just about all versions of D&D.

bhomes4 wrote:

I like this, the problem is it still hasn't solved what happens when the wizard wants to trip the orc off the bridge later... Or the thief needs to do it again but is out of luck.

Telling them they simply "can't" seems silly.

No, you tell them they tried and failed because they are out of luck.

Last edited by jmucchiello on Fri Sep 16, 2011 12:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Reminds me of a 4th edition "daily power" that's been used up somehow... Yuck.

geordie racer wrote:

If the wizard is out of magic and the thief is out of luck I suggest they try to escape/find cover/buy some time etc. Gandalf knew when to scarper.

...and DCC wizard wouldn't stoop to 'trying to push someone with his staff' -that's lame and mundane - where's the glory, the outrageous display of mastery, the Vancian arrogance ?

... if his life was on the line he'd be calling on BADASS PATRON to bring the pain to Orcboss.

Or-at the very worst-acting as bait so the thief could get in and backstab Orcboss!

What if the Wizards arch enemy is conveniently standing near the window of his tower, 20 floors up and engaged with the cleric. I would absolutely LOVE it if the PC wizard took this opportunity to simply throw him out the window. No magic missile to dispatch him, just pure brawn and the natural force of gravity.

I don't really care mind you, I don't need a rule for this as I would simply work with it on the fly old-school style. Likely I'd tell the wizard to make a "to-hit" at -4 or something, then have the other wizard make a strength check modified by the PC's strength. Then again I may just compare their strengths and give a chance on d6 that it works (say 1-2 on d6 he falls out the window). Afterall how can we honestly hope to create a realistic mechanic for something like this? All we need is some degree of likelihood that this plan could work based on the situation and abilities. If I think it's about 1 in 5 and my players say 50/50 we probably settle on 2/5 and go with it. Whatever is quick and laid out before we roll so it feels "legit" to us.

I won't drag this on though. If the rules state that the player must use "luck" points I can simply tell my players to ignore that. Likewise if there is a pile of 3e-type rules bogging my game down I can ignore those too.

How about setting a DC which the PC can Burn Luck (if they have any) to decrease before rolling ?

Isn't that what we are saying? You spend luck to be your Deed Die. So if you need a 3 result to get the desired effect, it costs 3 luck. If you need a 7 result to get the desired effect, it costs 7 luck.

Using luck as a power point pool, just like thieves already do in DCCRPG, reminds you of 4th edition daily powers???? Does not compute.

Well the difference is that normally if a thief runs out of luck points he can still attempt the same things as when he had the points, he is just more likely to fail at them. ie. "You want to push the wizard out the window? Ok make an attack at -4 and if you hit I will have him make a strength check. You are out of luck points so it's going to be a straight roll. Do you still want to try it?"

However if the Deed mechanic requires they spend points to attempt them, then it becomes an on/off (available/used) type of situation like 4th edition. ie. "Sorry you can't push the wizard out of the window, you are out of luck points". This is no different to me than 4e where you have situations like: "Sorry you can't use your leap attack on the wizard, you already used it today on that orc".

These are not spells or powers or something you can explain away as having only one use a day. These are just actions, repeatable actions that anyone could do more than once a day, even a non-adventurer like myself....

These are not spells or powers or something you can explain away as having only one use a day. These are just actions, repeatable actions that anyone could do more than once a day, even a non-adventurer like myself....

bholmes makes an excellent point.

I still do not see a good solution that does not take-away/water-down the Mighty Deeds ability of the warriors and dwarves.

These are just actions, repeatable actions that anyone could do more than once a day, even a non-adventurer like myself....

I think that's the problem right there - everyone should be able to attempt an action, but only a warrior should repeatedly be able to pull off one that is Mighty.

Hypothetically, if every class was given a Deed die the next argument would be -'Hey, everyone get's better at doing stuff, so Deed die's for non-warriors should scale up with level'

So what happens is someone suggests 'wizards advance in Deed die size every 3 levels, thieves every 2 levels' and by higher levels - wizards still become combat machines because they have more options than anyone in combat to start with anyway. Thieves Burn Luck on those rolls and auto-succeed each time.

So that would invalidate Conan, in an rpg based on Appendix N, because combat would be totally pwned by Anime-Ninja-Gandalf.

The problem with Andy's idea of the non-warrior's attempt at a MDoA giving the enemy an automatic free hit is that there are ranged MDoAs like called shot. As a wizard, if I fail to hit the cyclops eye with a crossbow bolt, why does he get to hit me if he has no ranged weapon and I'm not within his reach ?

I just think the other classes don't need a deed die at all. Assign a difficulty (called shot difficulty of -8 is a good base for most deeds, -4 to -12 is a good range) and allow a save/ability check by the opponent to prevent it. This latter part is the key to the whole thing as no matter what the thief does with burning luck to ensure he hits for instance, it is still not a sure bet as the opponent might prevent it with a save/ability check. With a warrior they don't get that save. That is the key to his power.

I suppose this could still work with a Deed die but I really don't think we need a special mechanic for something like this. Give some GM tips maybe, but we don't need a Deed die to complicate things further. If anything I want this game to get even simpler!

Last edited by bholmes4 on Sun Sep 18, 2011 12:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum